Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 2 Corinthians 2:1 - 2:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Co_2:1. Ἔκρινα δὲ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο ] δέ is the usual μεταβατικόν , which leads on from the assurance given by Paul in 2Co_1:23, to the thought that he in his own interest ( ἐμαυτῷ , dativus commodi; for see 2Co_2:2) was not willing to come again to them ἐν λύπῃ .
The interpretation apud me (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many others) would require παρʼ ἐμαυτῷ or ἐν ἐμ . (1Co_7:37; 1Co_11:13). Paul, by means of ἐμαυτῷ , gives to the matter an ingenious, affectionate turn, regarding the truth of which, however, there is no doub.
ἔκρινα ] I determined, as 1Co_2:2; 1Co_7:27. As to the emphatically preparatory τοῦτο with following infinitive accompanied by the article, comp. on Rom_14:13, and Krüger, § li. 7. 4.
πάλιν ] belongs to ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμ . ἐλθεῖν , taken together, so that Paul had once already (namely, on his second arrival) come to the Corinthians ἐν λύπῃ . The connection with ἐλθεῖν merely (Pelagius, Primasius, Theodoret, and the most; also Flatt, Baur, Reiche), a consequence of the error that Paul before our Epistles had been only once in Corinth,[137] is improbable even with the Recepta (the more suitable order of the words would be: τὸ μὴ ἐν λύπῃ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ), but is impossible both with our reading and with that of Tischendorf (see the critical remarks), unless we quite arbitrarily suppose, with Grotius (comp. also Reiche), a trajectio, or, with Baur, I. p. 342, an inaccuracy of epistolary styl.
ἐν λύπῃ ] provided with affliction (Bernhardy, p. 109; comp. Rom_15:29), bringing affliction with me, i.e. afflicting you. This explanation (Theodoret, Calvin, Grotius, and others, including Ewald) is, indeed, held by Hofmann to be impossible in itself, but is required by the following εἰ γὰρ ἐγὼ λυπῶ ὑμᾶς . Hence Billroth and Hofmann, following Chrysostom and many others, are wrong in thinking that the apostle’s own sadness is meant; and so also Bengel, Olshausen, Rückert, de Wette, Reiche, Neander, following Ambrosiaster, and others, who think that it is also included. That it is not meant at all, is shown by φειδόμενος , 2Co_1:23, and by the coupling of what follows with ΓΆΡ . Comp. ἘΝ ῬΆΒΔῼ , 1Co_4:21. The apparent difficulty, that Paul in our first Epistle makes no mention whatever of the fact and manner of his former visit to Corinth when he caused affliction, is obviated by the consideration that only after our first Epistle was the change of plan used to the apostle’s disadvantage, and that only now was he thereby compelled to mention the earlier arrival which had been made ἘΝ ΛΎΠῌ . Hence this passage is not a proof for the assumption of a journey to Corinth between our two Epistles (see the Introd.).
[137] This error has compelled many to get out of the difficulty by conceiving our first Epistle as the first coming ἐν λύπῃ So Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, and others. Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 204, believes that he has found another way: that Paul had the veryfirst time come to Corinth in affliction (1Co_2:1 ff.), which affliction he had brought mill him from Athens. As if in 1Co_2:1 ff. he is speaking of a λύπη ! and as if a λύπη brought with him from Athens, though nowhere proved, would have had anything to do with the Corinthians!